The non-decision last week by the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on the war
between cable and satellite carriers and the broadcasters is a clear
sign that the federal regulator's time is up. The CRTC decided last
week to give conventional TV broadcasters—CTV, Global Television and
private networks—the right to begin charging for their signals by
the distributors, the cable and satellite carriers, but the CRTC
also asked the Federal Court of Appeal to rule on its jurisdiction
in asking the companies to negotiate for the compensation. CRTC
commissioners know that conventional broadcasters have a problem,
but they also know they can't help them without breaking the
criteria they have followed up until now. In fact, the interests of
Canadian consumers have dominated every CRTC decision. Broadcasters
and carriers were always allowed to change their commitments and
increase fees paid by customers, as long as they could prove they
were giving something back in return to customers.
This time they
only mention is that if their request is not accepted, local
programs will disappear. But still, in their presentation, there is
no commitment on their future or how they want to make it stronger.
At
stake in this war is not just a fee to be paid, but the future of
Canadian broadcasting for years to come.
For
the first time in the dispute, broadcasters are asking for more
money without giving something in return. In fact, for the first
time, the issue in front of the CRTC is exclusively about money; and
we are talking about money for the shareholders of their respective
companies. For the first time, Canadian content, the interests of
consumers or help for Canadian producers, writers, and artists are
not even mentioned.
The
terms of the dispute are well-known. Conventional broadcasters,
after enjoying and strenuously defending their privilege of
mandatory carriage and free distribution in order to have the
maximum penetration with Canadian viewers, now want to join the
once-derelict group of specialty channels that had to fight for
distribution and always relegated to the bottom of the cable and
satellite lineup distribution list.
It
is true that technology and people's interests have changed, but the
main duty of a private company is to be clever enough to adapt the
business to the new economic, social, and technological environment,
and not the other way around. This is the first time the CTRC has
been asked to adapt preferences of viewers to the interest of
shareholders.
The
way it works is simple: if you have good shows, people will watch
your programs and advertisers will buy your airtime. Now they want
to change the rules by telling viewers something like, you don't
watch me and I'll punish you by making you pay.
They
want to make the same amount of money without asking themselves why
their viewership is declining.
Yes,
there are more channels than 20 years ago, technology is giving
consumers more hardware to play with and they spend less time
watching conventional TV. Just last week, Ipsos Reid reported that
"for the first time ever in their tracking research, the weekly
internet usage of online Canadians has moved ahead of the number of
hours spent watching television."
This
doesn't mean that people don't watch TV on the internet, but this is
a huge problem for the broadcasters because the competition is
becoming even bigger and the new technology is challenging the
broadcasters' territorial rights, probably the most profitable
avenue for many of them.
Aside
for news programs, even if some of them are only parroting CNN, most
of Canadian conventional broadcasters are becoming the Canadian
branches of American networks or producers of American shows.
The
main problem for Canadian broadcasters is not caused by the new
technology but their failure to adapt to it in a meaningful way and,
most of all, disregarding the content. They always talk about
Canadian content and the need "to tell our stories" to Canadian
people. The fact of the matter is that, by removing the news, almost
the entire Canadian TV lineup is made in the United States.
The
excuse that we can't compete with the American producers because
they can count on 300 million potential viewers while in Canada it's
only 30 million, doesn't hold water. The 300 million American
viewers are not a threat, but an opportunity; after all, aren't we
speaking the same language?
The
fact of the matter is that while American producers look at the
world as potential for viewers, Canadian broadcasters closed
themselves within our national perimeter and gave the shop away to
the Americans. In Canada, there is a lot of talent in all sectors;
we have producers, writers, film makers and yes, a lot of stories to
tell. But for our conventional broadcasters is much easier to sign a
Cheque to buy new technology to broadcast American programs than
promoting Canadian talent and sell it to the Americans.
"We
can't do that, it's almost impossible," one Canadian broadcaster
told me last week. Of course, it's hard, but it can be done.
Instead, they prefer to beg for more money from the cable and
satellite carriers and Canadian consumers so they can keep their
investors happy and keep buying expensive American shows that sell
out our Canadian identity.
In
all of this, the CRTC washed its hands and is asking the courts for
an opinion on the issue. Still, I don't understand if it's an
opinion about the right of shareholders to make money, or the rights
of Canadian citizens to keep—never mind promote—their identity.
